Tag: paraphrase

Michael Fullan (2016) states that coherence is “a shared
depth of understanding about the purpose and nature of the work in the minds
and actions individually and especially collectively” and is not about specific
strategies, frameworks or alignment. So, how might we build coherent teams? How
do we determine the ‘right’ actions and de-emphasize actions that are
distractions? How might we focus on actions that enhance our collective as well
as our autonomy? There are some processes and skills that are helpful.

Positive Communication

To build coherent teams, we need to know and practice
communication skills, including paraphrasing and posing questions. A general
conversation flow includes:

The Art of Paraphrase

“The purposeful use of paraphrase signals our full
attention. It communicates that we understand the teacher’s thoughts, concerns,
questions and ideas; or that we are trying to … well-crafted paraphrases align
the speaker and responder, establishing understanding and communicating regard.
Questions, no matter how well-intentioned, distance by degrees, the asker from
the asked.”

(Adapted from Wellman and Lipton)

Things to keep in mind when paraphrasing:

Attend fully.

Listen with the intention to understand.

Capture the essence of the message but in a
shorter format.

Reflect the essence of voice, tone and gesture.

Paraphrase before asking a question.

Use the pronoun “you” instead of “I.”

Intentions of Paraphrasing

Well-crafted paraphrases with appropriate pauses trigger
more thoughtful responses than questions can alone. Three types of paraphrase,
shown in the chart below, widen the range of possible responses. Each type
supports relationship and thinking but the paraphrase that shifts the level of
abstraction is more likely to create new levels of understanding. Conversations
that utilize paraphrasing often move through a pattern of acknowledging to
summarizing to abstracting, but there is no right pathway for the
conversations.

Types of Questions

Horn and Metler-Armijo (Toolkit for Mentor Practice, 2010)
identify three types of questions that are useful for professional
conversations:

Clarifying questions – are asked to further
understanding of the questioner. These types of questions convey that the
questioner is actively interested.

Probing questions – are asked to have the
speaker think more deeply about the concerns, challenges, or actions being
taken. These types of questions dig into ideas to move from generalizations to
specific ideas.

Mediational questions – are “intentionally
designed to engage and transform the other person’s thinking and perspective”
(Costa and Garmston, 2002). These types of questions are designed to open up
and broaden thinking.

Mediational Questions

A special comment on “Why”…

Why questions are part of our everyday language. Why are you
late? Why do you not have a pencil? Why are you doing that?

When we are having a conversation that may be emotional or
highly charged, a question that begins with “Why” may create a sense of
defensiveness. Consider a situation where someone has made a certain decision.
Compare the reaction to “Why have you done this action?” vs “What is the impact
your decision has had on…?”. A question that begins “What” or “How” is often more
thought provoking and has less potential to create a defensive response.

Liberating Structures

Liberating
structures, when used regularly, allow all team members the opportunity to
work together to produce solutions, ideas and feel that everyone is
contributing to an organization’s next steps. It is possible for every person
to generate ideas and lead change.

Integrated~Autonomy

When considering how to best meet the needs of a system and
the schools within a system, it is important that we view centralization/standardization
and autonomy as both achievable and desirable rather than viewing them as
opposite and competing interests. The Integrated~Autonomy
liberating structure can help us to:

Develop innovative strategies to move forward.

Avoid wild swings in policies, programs or
structures.

Evaluate decisions by asking “are we boosting
both Coherence and Autonomy?”.

Increase quality of communication between
school-based and Increase quality of communication between school-based and central
office leaders.

Imagine actions that work towards BOTH increased standardization/centralization
and increased Autonomy.

Some Examples

Attendance policies and consequences for
non-attendance – what policies should be set centrally and which decisions
should be made locally?

Structuring the Invitation:

Explore the question: Will our purpose be best
served by increased local autonomy, including customization and site-based
decision-making OR will our purpose be best served by increased coherence,
including integration, standardization and centralized decision-making?

How might we be more coherent AND more
autonomous at the same time?

Troika

This collaborative problem-solving strategy allows for
colleagues to share possible solutions in a safe, non-judgmental environment.

In groups of three, learners sit in a triangle facing one
another with no table between them. One person is the ‘client’, and the other
two are the ‘consultants’.

The client describes their dilemma, barrier or issue for about 2 minutes. The consultants might ask clarifying questions at this time.

The client turns their chair so that their back is to the two consultants. The consultants discuss possible solutions to the client’s issue without any input, affirmation or cues from the client. The client might write down those suggestions that are most helpful. This might last for 2 – 4 minutes.

The client turns around and summarizes what suggestions are most helpful that they might try.